Euthanasia, alternatively known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, entails intentionally taking action to terminate a life with the intention of alleviating unrelenting suffering.

This practice often raises complex ethical considerations, prompting a deep discourse on its morality and legality. In the Indian context, where diverse cultural, social, and legal factors intersect, the ethical dimensions of euthanasia provoke significant deliberation.

Doctrine of Double Effect:

  • This principle addresses situations where a morally good action results in an unintended morally bad consequence, which is justified if the bad consequence wasn’t intended.
  • Applied to euthanasia, it’s cited when a doctor administers drugs to relieve distressing symptoms, knowing it might shorten the patient’s life.
  • Example: A terminally ill cancer patient is given pain-relieving medication, which unintentionally hastens their death.

Right to Life:

  • Emphasizes that there’s no inherent ‘right’ to be killed; permitting voluntary euthanasia may lead to non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia.
  • Granting doctors, the authority to decide when a patient’s life is no longer valuable raises concerns about the slippery slope into involuntary euthanasia.
  • Example: A patient’s family, fearing long-term suffering, pressures a doctor to perform euthanasia against the patient’s wishes.

Slippery Slope Argument:

  • Warns that permitting a seemingly small initial step, like legalizing euthanasia, can initiate a chain reaction leading to broader consequences.
  • Euthanasia legalization might eventually normalize taking human life more generally.
  • Example: A legal framework for voluntary euthanasia might inadvertently encourage cases of non-voluntary euthanasia.


  • Stresses the patient’s right to make decisions about their own life and death.
  • Raises the question of who should determine whether euthanasia is appropriate: the patient, the doctor, or family members.
  • Example: A terminally ill patient, in unbearable pain, desires the option of euthanasia to maintain control over their own fate.

Affordability of Medical Expenses:

  • Distinguishes between euthanasia and patients declining extraordinary or burdensome medical treatment.
  • Ethical consideration arises when financial constraints force patients to choose euthanasia due to the inability to afford proper care.
  • Example: A family opts for euthanasia due to inability to afford life-sustaining treatment for their critically ill family member.

Moral Issues with Active Euthanasia:

  • Draws a moral distinction between actively ending a patient’s life and passively allowing death by withdrawing treatment.
  • Passive euthanasia might be seen as allowing a natural death without moral culpability.
  • However, concerns arise about subjecting patients to unnecessary pain if they’re left to die naturally.
  • Example: Withdrawing life support from a patient in a vegetative state might be considered more ethically sound than actively administering a lethal dose of medication.

Euthanasia exists at the intersection of morality and legality, prompting profound discussions about the right to die with dignity versus the value of preserving life.

The nuanced ethical dimensions surrounding euthanasia require careful consideration, especially in the context of Indian society’s cultural and legal complexities. Balancing individual autonomy, protection against misuse, and the imperative to alleviate suffering forms the crux of this contentious debate, striving to honor both the right to die and the right to live with dignity.

Legacy Editor Changed status to publish March 23, 2024